According to the Tuscany Administrative Court, a special-protection permit covered by the 2023 transitional rules may still be converted for work

Italian immigration law in practice — 8 November 2026. Amendments to immigration legislation do not always affect existing residence permits in the same way as newly issued ones. When a law removes the possibility of converting a particular residence title into a work permit, the date on which the previous permit was issued and the transitional provisions become decisive. The Tuscany Regional Administrative Court (TAR Toscana, Second Division), in judgment no. 114 of 27 January 2025, addressed a refused application to convert a permit for special protection into a permit for employment. The court upheld the challenge because the administration had overlooked the transitional protection applicable to the permit in that particular case.

The facts: an application made at the immigration office

The applicant, a Gambian national, attended the Florence Police Headquarters' immigration office on 14 November 2023. He requested the conversion of the special-protection residence permit previously issued to him by the Prato Police Headquarters into a permit for employment. The immigration office refused to accept the conversion in the manner sought. As a result, the applicant asked for renewal of his special-protection permit instead.

There was no formal written refusal of conversion in the file. However, the applicant produced a statement dated 14 November 2023, bearing the stamp and signature of the Florence Police Headquarters, recording what had happened. That document became central evidence in the litigation: it showed not merely a request the applicant claimed to have made, but a specific administrative response to it.

The applicant initially brought the dispute before the ordinary court in Florence. In judgment no. 426 of 8 February 2024, that court declined jurisdiction and indicated that the matter should be heard by the administrative court. The case was therefore continued before TAR Toscana, with the applicant seeking annulment of the refusal of conversion.

Can an administrative refusal exist without a written decision?

The first legal question concerned the existence of a reviewable administrative act. The Police Headquarters had not issued a conventional, formally reasoned decree denying conversion. Nevertheless, the court found that an implicit administrative decision could be identified from the administration's conduct.

The judgment explains that an implicit decision can exist when an authority, even without signing a separate formal document, acts in a way that objectively and unequivocally expresses the same substantive decision. The stamped and signed statement demonstrated that the immigration office had rejected the conversion request and that the applicant had consequently been directed towards renewal of the existing special-protection title.

This finding was important because the case was not merely about an unanswered request or an informal disagreement at an administrative counter. The applicant had evidence of a specific refusal, allowing the administrative court to examine whether that refusal was lawful.

The legislative change introduced in 2023

Decree-Law no. 20 of 10 March 2023, converted with amendments by Law no. 50/2023, altered the regime governing special-protection residence permits. Article 7(1)(a) repealed the provision in Article 6(1-bis) of Legislative Decree no. 286/1998 that had allowed the conversion of certain special-protection permits into permits for employment.

Read alone, that reform might suggest that conversion was no longer possible in every case after the legislative amendment. But the law also contained a transitional rule, and this was the decisive point in the litigation.

Article 7(3) of the 2023 decree preserved specific effects for existing special-protection permits covered by its wording. In particular, it provided for a one-time renewal of the relevant permits, for an annual duration, and expressly maintained the possibility of converting the residence title into a permit for work if the statutory requirements for conversion were satisfied.

The Tuscany court found that the applicant's special-protection permit was still valid at the legally relevant moment when that transitional regime came into force. The administration should therefore have applied Article 7(3) and examined the conversion application under that provision instead of treating the general reform as an absolute prohibition.

What did the judge decide?

The court upheld the applicant's challenge and annulled the implicit refusal. It held that the Police Headquarters was required to examine the application for conversion in accordance with the transitional provision and the reasons stated in the judgment. The ruling did not itself grant the applicant a work residence permit, and it did not declare that every special-protection permit could be converted regardless of its date, statutory basis or supporting documents.

The court also compensated the parties' litigation costs, referring to the novelty of the legal issue. The decision addressed a specific residence permit covered by the former legislation and the transitional rule. Its practical value lies in the method of identifying the proper law: first establish the history of the residence title, then determine the applicable transitional provision, and only then assess whether the substantive conversion conditions are met.

Why the date of a residence permit matters

In transitional immigration law, identical-looking residence documents can have different legal consequences. The relevant factors may include the legal ground on which the original permit was issued, the date of issuance, whether it remained valid when the new law entered into force, and the exact wording of the transitional rules.

A foreign national holding a permit for special protection should therefore not assume that a rule applied in someone else's case will necessarily apply to their own document. Nor should an official assume that a legislative repeal extinguishes all conversion possibilities without examining any transitional clause. The decision demonstrates why an accurate administrative chronology is essential.

In particular, the ruling must not be used to promise conversion to people whose permits fall entirely outside the scope of Article 7(3). A different legal basis or a permit first granted at another time may require a different assessment. This is especially important in 2026, when practitioners must also consider subsequent legislative developments rather than applying a 2023 rule in isolation.

Special protection and permission to work are separate legal questions

Special protection addresses grounds that may prevent a person's removal or justify a specific residence status under the applicable legislation. A permit for employment, by contrast, is linked to the legal conditions for residence on work grounds. Conversion is the procedural bridge between two different categories, and it exists only when the relevant rules permit it.

Even where a transitional provision allows conversion in principle, the applicant must still satisfy the statutory requirements for a work residence permit. An employment offer, for example, must be evaluated according to the legal regime in force, together with the relevant employment documentation and any further conditions applicable to the proposed conversion.

The Tuscany judgment does not abolish these requirements. Its conclusion was that the administration could not refuse even to consider conversion solely by relying on the 2023 legislative change when the applicant was covered by an express transitional exception.

What applicants and lawyers should document

The starting point is a complete copy of the existing residence permit and any prior permits, showing the legal ground, dates and administrative history. Applicants should retain renewal receipts, decisions granting the underlying protection status and documents showing what title was in force when the legislation changed.

Next, the conversion request should be made in a legally recognisable form and through the appropriate procedure. If an immigration office refuses to receive or examine the request, written evidence of that interaction can be especially important. A signed and stamped statement, as in this case, may establish that the authority has adopted an adverse position despite not issuing a formal decree.

A practitioner should distinguish a refusal to receive an application, an implicit refusal of conversion, a written rejection on the merits and administrative silence. The appropriate remedy and competent judge can depend on the nature of the measure. In this dispute, the initial ordinary-court action ended with a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, after which the proceedings continued before the administrative court.

Where the authority identifies obstacles, the applicant should respond with relevant documents and legal arguments, taking account of any applicable participation safeguards. However, repeatedly asking an office to reconsider its position does not automatically preserve judicial time limits. The date and nature of the contested decision need to be examined promptly.

Administrative responsibility and individual obligations

The case illustrates responsibilities on both sides of immigration procedures. The applicant is expected to disclose accurate facts, identify the permit actually held, document employment and satisfy the conditions attached to the requested title. The administration must determine the governing legal regime, including transitional provisions, and apply it to the documented facts rather than substituting an oversimplified reading of a legislative amendment.

That division of responsibility also serves legal certainty. A regulation should not be interpreted in a way that eliminates an exception expressly provided for existing situations, just as an individual cannot rely on the existence of that exception without proving that their own case falls within its scope.

Conclusion

In judgment no. 114/2025, TAR Toscana established that the refusal to consider conversion of a special-protection permit was unlawful where the permit was covered by the transitional provision of Article 7(3) of Decree-Law no. 20/2023. The court annulled the implicit refusal and required the administration to examine the application under the correct legal framework. The decision is not a general right to convert every special-protection permit; it is a reminder that an express transitional protection must be respected and that both the permit's legal history and the work-related requirements must be proved.

Judgment and verifiable source: TAR Toscana, Florence, Second Division, judgment of 27 January 2025, no. 114; President Cacciari, Reporting Judge Papi. Full anonymised decision in Italian (EIUS).

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer admitted to practise before the Italian Court of Cassation
Registered in the Italian Chamber of Deputies' Register of Interest Representatives in the field of Immigration
Registered interest representative in the European Union Transparency Register, no. 280782895721-36, in the field of Migration and Asylum
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the author's direction, review and editorial responsibility.